Download to read offline
![References
Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2011). Primo
“OneSearch” usability report. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.
Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library
usability: tools for usability testing in the library. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University.
Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library
usability: tools for usability testing in the library (presentation). , Texas
Library Association Conference, Houston, TX, April 19, 2012.
Krug, Steve. (2006). Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to
web usability, Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
Sauro, Jeff. (February 2, 2011). Measuring usability with the system
usability scale (SUS). Retrieved February 22, 2012 from
http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php
Schmidt, Aaron, Etches-Johnson, Amanda. (January 25, 2012). 10 steps
to a user-friendly library website. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from
https://alapublishing.webex.com
Still, Brian. (2010). A study guide for the certified user experience
professional (CUEP) workshop [study guide]. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech
University.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/ttulibrariesprimousabilitystudy2012-160818194204/75/Primo-Usability-What-Texas-Tech-Discovered-When-Implementing-Primo-20-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Similar to Primo Usability: What Texas Tech Discovered When Implementing Primo
Primo Usability: What Texas Tech Discovered When Implementing Primo
- 1. Primo Usability: What TexasTech Discovered When Implementing Primo Lynne Edgar Texas Tech University Libraries lynne.edgar@ttu.edu http://onesearch.lib.ttu.edu/
- 2. Purpose: toevaluate how well the OneSearch interface serves library patrons and identify ways it can be improved before it replaces the traditional library catalog Evaluators: Texas Tech University Libraries Usability Task Force
- 3. Planning Tasks Script Consent form Institutional Review Board Approval Pre-testing University-wide announcement for participation
- 4. Tasks Find abook Find an e-book Find a database Find an article Find a digital collection Find a thesis/dissertation Find an image
- 5. Usability Methods Employed Task observation: Morae software 1 laptop with Morae Recorder to capture video and audio and Morae Manager for tagging 1 laptop with Morae Observer to observe the video and audio in real time OneSearch Survey: conducted with Counting Opinions InformsUs software
- 6. Methodology One userat a time Test with one facilitator Use Retrospective Recall Demographic Pre-survey Post survey: System Usability Scale
- 7. Participants 8 students,based on their demographic profile, experience with existing library search tools and their status (undergraduates, graduate) 3 experts 3 intermediates 2 novices
- 8. Incentives Pizza andsodas!
- 9. Results of theStudy √ The novice users had the most success. √ Intermediate users made tasks more difficult by performing more complex searches. √ Experienced users looked at the dropdown limiters for each task.
- 10.
- 11. Problems Identified DatabasesA-Z link not visible Dropdown limiters misleading Articles by subject tab not visible
- 12. A-Z link needsto be changed to E-Journals A-Z Additional Problems
- 13. Scopes need tobe changed to something intuitive
- 14.
- 15. Primo Survey Results:Did you find what you were looking for?
- 16.
- 17. Obstacles Institutional ReviewBoard Approval Budget: $0 Recruitment Implementing usability findings
- 18. Lessons Learned Expectdelays Term ‘usability’ often misunderstood Implementing changes may be difficult Show results instead of telling implementers what changes should be made Do small usability tests and change a few small things at a time
- 19. Conclusions The OneSearchstudy and online survey results were positive, overall. Problems identified were mainly cosmetic and inconsistent and can readily be fixed. Functionality issues are separate and can be addressed by altering or removing the function.
- 20. References Clark, Melanie,Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2011). Primo “OneSearch” usability report. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library usability: tools for usability testing in the library. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University. Clark, Melanie, Esther De Leon, Lynne Edgar, Joy Perrin (2012). Library usability: tools for usability testing in the library (presentation). , Texas Library Association Conference, Houston, TX, April 19, 2012. Krug, Steve. (2006). Don’t make me think! A common sense approach to web usability, Second Edition. Berkeley, CA: New Riders. Sauro, Jeff. (February 2, 2011). Measuring usability with the system usability scale (SUS). Retrieved February 22, 2012 from http://www.measuringusability.com/sus.php Schmidt, Aaron, Etches-Johnson, Amanda. (January 25, 2012). 10 steps to a user-friendly library website. Retrieved January 25, 2012, from https://alapublishing.webex.com Still, Brian. (2010). A study guide for the certified user experience professional (CUEP) workshop [study guide]. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University.
- 21. Lynne Edgar Systems Librarian TexasTech University Libraries lynne.edgar@ttu.edu http://onesearch.lib.ttu.edu/ Thank You!
Editor's Notes
- #6 MEELS Memorability - can users return to a website and remember where things are? Errors - user shouldn’t make many mistakes Efficiency – the fewer steps to get somewhere the better the website Learnability - site should be intuitive or easy to learn Satisfaction – users should like the site
- #10 even when a general search would yield sufficient results.
- #11 The System Usability Scale is an industry standard based on a ten-item attitude rating scale giving a global view of subjective assessments of usability. The OneSearch SUS score was 78.75. A score over 70 suggests that there is nothing inherently wrong with the system.